[HarleyD]

the "Church" (a communion of bishops in this case) agreed eventually on what books are "scripture" and which are not. It took them 300 plus years to do that. And even then it wasn't fully agreed upon.

That is not the position of the Church. They didn't "agree" to anything. The Church position has always been that they knew what was inspired and what wasn't. They only affirmed the inspired scripture.

Now you have more of an argument with the Protestants tossing out the Apocrypha 1200 years later. However, us Protestants would argue that we rest our affirmation on those books that were deemed inspired by the VERY EARLY Church fathers (the Hebrew fathers) rather than those who came along 300+ years later.

[kawaii]

can you please name some of these Hebrew fathers, cause it seems to me that they’re the same ones that asked pilate to crucify the messiah, and added vowels to the scriptures.

[kosta50]

That is not the position of the Church. They didn't "agree" to anything. The Church position has always been that they knew what was inspired and what wasn't. They only affirmed the inspired scripture

Well, historical facts indicate to the contrary. Codex Sinaiticus, then oldext complete Christian Bible (c. 340 AD) contains the Epistle of Barbanus and Sherpherd of Hermes as well as other books of the Old and the New Testament. Clearly some of the fathers thought different.

Protestants would argue that we rest our affirmation on those books that were deemed inspired by the VERY EARLY Church fathers (the Hebrew fathers) rather than those who came along 300+ years later

Which Hebrew fathers? Some of the NT deuterocanonicals (i.e. 1 and 2 Peter, and others, were not written until the 2nd century when all those "Hebrew fathers" were dead!).